Meta-analyses findings.

AimThe aim of this umbrella review was to establish which biopsychosocial factors are associated with development of chronic musculoskeletal pain.MethodsOvid Medline, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, PsycINFO, CINAHL, PEDro, PROSPERO, Google Scholar and grey literature were searched from database inception to 4th April 2023. Systematic reviews of observational prospective longitudinal studies, including populations with 3 months) musculoskeletal pain. Two reviewers searched the literature, assessed risk of bias (Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews-2), and evaluated quality (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) to provide an overall statement on the certainty of evidence for each biopsychosocial factor. Data analysis was performed through random effects meta-analysis (including meta-analysis of meta-analyses where possible) and descriptive synthesis.Results13 systematic reviews were included comprising 185 original research studies (n = 489,644 participants). Thirty-four biopsychosocial factors are associated with development of chronic musculoskeletal pain. Meta-analyses of odds and/or likelihood ratios were possible for 25 biopsychosocial factors. There is moderate certainty evidence that smoking (OR 1.24 [95%CI, 1.14–1.34), fear avoidance (LR+ 2.11 [95%CI, 1.59–2.8]; LR- 0.5 [95%CI, 0.35–0.71]) poorer support networks (OR 1.21 [95%CI, 1.14–1.29]), lower socioeconomic status (OR 2.0 [95%CI, 1.64–2.42]), and high levels of pain (OR 5.61 [95%CI, 3.74–8.43]) are associated with development of chronic musculoskeletal pain (all PConclusions and relevanceThere is moderate certainty evidence that smoking, fear avoidance, poorer support networks, lower socioeconomic status, and high levels of pain are associated with development of chronic musculoskeletal pain. High risk of bias was evident in most included reviews; this highlights the need for higher quality systematic reviews.